Category talk:Ill-defined
Subjective category? This category seems controversial. Some say that Triakulus and Meameamealokkapoowa oompa is well defined, while some say the opposite. Do we actually need this category? -- ☁ I want more ⛅ 02:04, May 28, 2014 (UTC) :Vote to delete. you're.so. 04:08, May 28, 2014 (UTC) :I don't see why not :P King2218 (talk) 04:41, May 28, 2014 (UTC) :I vote to delete. LittlePeng9 (talk) 04:42, May 28, 2014 (UTC) Although I don't see why this category is useful, I also don't see why triakulus would be well-defined. Wythagoras (talk) 05:20, May 28, 2014 (UTC) :Triakulus is actually defined implicitly. By some expressions, Bowers mean that f(X) & n has f(n) entries and one of the rules for array of is A+B & n = {A & n (B) B & n} (and we must write separators in hypernomial form, i.e. (0,0,1) as X^(X^2)). However, meameamealokkapoowa oompa is completely ill-defined. Bowers didn't give a clue of how arrays of L's work. The prime block (fundamental sequence) {L,n}n,n, {LL,n}n,n, {LLL,n}n,n can be {L(1)2,n}n,n, {L(1)X,n}n,n and {L(1)L,n}n,n as well. Ikosarakt1 (talk ^ ) 08:25, May 28, 2014 (UTC) :If we consider only explicitly and formally defined Bowerian numbers, then I guess that latri would be the largest one. The set of rules for multidimensional arrays refer to the definition of & operator, which Bowers didn't define formally. Latri was the largest number which Bowers described in terms of linear arrays. Ikosarakt1 (talk ^ ) 10:30, May 28, 2014 (UTC) To be fair, Jonathan Bowers' does define dimensional arrays on his website, it's just that his description is very wordy. It's stuff beyond Hilbert-space that has no explicit definition. As most people know, Bowers' only has notation for arrays up to tetrational arrays. After that one has to rely solely on the array-of operator Sbiis Saibian (talk) 13:52, May 28, 2014 (UTC) Why do you claim triakulus is well defined? We have defined our own way of resolving that array, but this isn't the definition of Bowers. He might have had some other way of resolving it in his mind. For me, everything exceeding tetrational arrays is as undefined as of how Bowers defined it. If we can make our own way of resolving things like triakulus making it well-defined, then I claim we can do the same thing for legion arrays and beyond. LittlePeng9 (talk) 13:55, May 28, 2014 (UTC) :Okay, then the largest well-defined Bowersism is latri. Tetrational arrays aren't defined by Bowers: he doesn't have a rule for something like {n,n (2 (0,1) 2,2,2 (1,1) 2) 3}. Ikosarakt1 (talk ^ ) 15:13, May 28, 2014 (UTC) I don't think we reached consensus, so I'm asking for yes/no answers now: do you want this category to be removed? LittlePeng9 (talk) 18:17, June 1, 2014 (UTC) :Yes. LittlePeng9 (talk) 18:17, June 1, 2014 (UTC) :Yes. Wythagoras (talk) 18:52, June 1, 2014 (UTC) :Yes. AarexTiaokhiao 19:36, June 1, 2014 (UTC) :Yes. you're.so. 19:52, June 1, 2014 (UTC) :No. Ikosarakt1 (talk ^ ) 19:56, June 1, 2014 (UTC) :yes WikiRigbyDude (talk) 23:16, June 1, 2014 (UTC) :No. King2218 (talk) 23:42, June 1, 2014 (UTC) :Yes. ☁ I want more ⛅ 13:44, June 2, 2014 (UTC) ::And it goes. you're.so. 19:05, June 6, 2014 (UTC) Why was the ill-definedness regarded as a subjective notion? At least, there are no actual definition of BEAF. If someone says "Meameamealokkapoowa oompa is well-defined", "BIG FOOT is the greatest valid googolism", "my number is infinite!" or something like that, then it just means that he or she does not care about what the well-defineness means. It does not mean that they are well-defined. p-adic 13:58, November 15, 2019 (UTC) : I created another category for unformalised notions. Should I move several notions in this category to the category for unformalised notions? : p-adic 23:41, November 17, 2019 (UTC) ::I support that proposition. There doesn't seem to be a large enough difference between "unformalized" and "ill-defined" to really require two separate categories IMO. Edwin Shade 2 (talk) 01:05, November 18, 2019 (UTC) :: I am planning to create another new category for formalised but ill-defined notions. For example, BIG FOOT is carefully formalised, but found to be ill-defined because its existence contradicts set theory. The main difference between them is that we can argue on the ill-definedness in mathematics for formalised stuff, while unformalised stuff are nothing wrong but nothing correct. We can deveop googology by remaking formalised stuff, and also by formalising unformalised stuff. Therefore it is better to separate the category into two. I will remove articles from this category, because separating this category into two (one for unformalised works and the other one for formalised works) solve the issue argued above. Or does anyone have an opinion that we should keep those stuff in this category? :: p-adic 01:23, November 18, 2019 (UTC) :: I have done it. Although I do not know the reason, there is a user whose user page is added to this category (in order to keep this category or to make this category easily accessible from the user page?). Also, could someone tell me whether we are allowed to add personal pages such as blog posts and profiles to a category? If yes, I would like to add my profile page to several categories which I would like to access easily. :: p-adic 01:49, November 18, 2019 (UTC) Clarification I have created two categories for ill-defined notions in order to clarify the reasons why notions are ill-defined. Can I add links to them in the article of "Category:Ill-defined"? If nobody disagrees, I will recreate this article. (Of course, I will write that we are supposed not to add notions directly to Category:Ill-defined.) p-adic 03:03, November 30, 2019 (UTC) : Done. : p-adic 09:50, December 6, 2019 (UTC)